About your Search

20120901
20120930
STATION
SFGTV 31
SFGTV2 12
CSPAN 1
WTTG 1
LANGUAGE
English 45
Search Results 0 to 44 of about 45 (some duplicates have been removed)
anything to add? >> what you are proposing mr. wagner, along the lines that the commission did not find evidence sustaining charges of witness dissuasion and interference with a police investigation? those are the two that stick out for me, perhaps, if you wanted to include a sentence along those lines? >> i think the guns would also be the third major allegation that we found was not proven. >> thank you, commissioners for considering this point. i think my concern is that as commissioner renne said at the last hearing, the counts are the charges. so when the commission is saying in this document, the board should sustain the charges that implies that the board should sustains the counts, when, in fact, the commission rejected four of those counts completely. and that is 1,2,3 and 6. so i think this document should reflect that fact and by simply saying that the commission -- the board should reject counts 1, 2, 3 and 6 completely, and as to counts 4 and 5, well, i will leave it to the commission. that language is already in here and i do think it's clear that the commission -- w
fellow commissioners? yes, mr. wagner? >> i also have some suggested changes to the finding of fact and recommendations. i can address that first. >> sure. >> in general i object to the overall language of the draft findings. i think that the document is very one-sided and doesn't mention for example that the commission unanimously rejected many, if not all of the contested factual allegations made by the mayor. for example, as to misuse of guns as to dissuasion and to page 4 where it says the commission denied the sheriff's request for subpoenas as to collateral issues and describe those issues and the issue was whether or not the major commited perjury and that is why we requested those subpoenas. that is not reflected in the document and finally and most importantly, well, two other points. on page 5 in the "findings of fact," in paragraph 3, it refers to "acts of verbal and physical abuse." without saying what those were. i don't think that the commission actually made a determination other than the arm grab that there were any other acts of "verbal and physical abuse." simil
a viewpoint in light of mr. wagner's comments? >> i think mr. wagner raises a good point, mainly on a perception issue. what i believe the board is seeking and what i felt i could do without putting myself in a conflict situation is simply report to the board what this commission did and what findings it made. essentially reiterating the written document. the board wants someone there to be able to make that presentation and answer questions. i don't think there is an ideal solution to who that right person should be. if it were the chair, it would be awkward, because the chair is the one dissenter from the decision. if it one member of four-person majority, that would be awkward, because that person may be asked questions to speak for the entire majority and not feel comfortable doing that. if it were me, there is some awkwardness with the legal advice that i might be called upon to present to the board and what i hope to be a very dry and neutral presentation of what the findings are here. but it puts me in some of the an awkward situation, so i don't disagree with mr. wagner,
disagree with na, i think the sentence was stipulated. mr. wagner., ou have a view on that? >> i would object to adding any language that attempts to change what the commission decided on august the 16th that is not ultimately relevant to what the commission is tasked to do. >> i can appreciate that view, but my question is did you stipulate what the sentence was? >> yes. >> okay, thank you. >> that is not reflected -- we stipulated to several of these facts. but the way it reads here is that the commission unanimously finds that the mayor proved the facts. well, if we stipulated to the facts already, then the mayor didn't need to prove them. >> okay. i have no objection to putting in the sentence in "finding of fact 7." >> excuse me, i need that sentence then. what i have is "and was sentenced to ge=t: hree years' probation, domestic violence counseling and a fine. it is this conviction and sentence -- ." >> that part i don't agree should be put in the findings of fact? >> the sentence i just started? >> yes. >> and i think whatever the senten
and this language minimizes all of that. >> mr. wagner, with all due respect, we didn't ignore it and, in fact we talked about at t at some length and is dueded that under and/or too collateral to address and it's in the record. the board can look at it. i frankly think this language accurately reflects what we decided. again, if you have specific words that you think are inaccurate, you can point them out. but i certainly don't think this should come out. this is simply a reflection of what we decided. we're not making any judgment calls as to in this paragraph as to whether or not the mayor's testimony was otherwise credible. >> may i add something? >> yes, commissioner liu? >> in addition i also think it's important to remember that chair hur during that meeting, whichever date that that was that we discussed our request for additional evidence and testimony, that chair hur pointed out that perjury charges are not and were not before us. our commission was not asked to pursue charges of perjury against the mayor. your request to us was whether to allow evidence from four additional witnesse
. but it puts me in some of the an awkward situation, so i don't disagree with mr. wagner, but it may be the best of the alternatives to have me do it given my neutral position. but i'm open to whatever the commission would like. >> mr. wagner? >> i think mr. hemblig said it well in pointing out that it raises a perception issue. the question is -- >> so are you advocating then that rather than mr. emblig, who will give a neutral, as he put it "dry presentation," you would want someone from the majority to go there and make the presentation? is that what you are suggesting? >> no. >> who do you think should do it? >> well, we objected to any one from the commission. >> well, if we're going to send someone, mr. wagner, so if you object to mr. emblig. >> i don't think it's fair, respectfully commissioner to put it back on us who is the best person to advocate your position to the board in the process? >> we're giving you an opportunity to weigh in on how we should present this to the board. if you are going to object to mr. emblig and have no other suggestion, that is fine. b
, if we're going to send someone, mr. wagner, so if you object to mr. emblig. >> i don't think it's fair, respectfully commissioner to put it back on us who is the best person to advocate your position to the board in the process? >> we're giving you an opportunity to weigh in on how we should present this to the board. if you are going to object to mr. emblig and have no other suggestion, that is fine. but i'm giving you that opportunity and if you decline it, that is fine. >> then i would respectfully suspect that the director, mr. sancroix explain the procedures and the commission's position to the board. ultimately as mr. emblig said, there is a perception issue and the ethics commission, i believe should take every action that it possibly can to avoid the perception of impropriety and to avoid the appearance of conflict. so that is why i raised the issue and i think that the director making the presentation would alleviate that concern, because the director is not counsel for the commission or the board. >> i am a little confused as to why the board can't have other counsel. >>
a court reporter. >> mr. wagner, there is no requirement that there is a court reporter at any proceeding. this was a proceeding to ratify the decisions already made. your objection is noted. >> i would also note for the record if that was going to be an objection, it should have been made before the meeting started or when the meeting started, so the commission if they thought was merit to could have corrected it. >> thank you, commissioner renne and to that, we were not notified there was not going to be any court reporter and i just noticed in the last ten minutes. i just assume there had would be, because there has been one at all the other meetings and that is why respectfully i raised the issue now. thank you. >> with respect to the minutes, i have some amendments. subsequent to the april 23rd meeting we essentially had one continuing meeting up until august 16th. so when the minutes reflect starting on may 29th, motions that were voted on and passed, i think that is inaccurate. i think we made preliminary motions or preliminary decisions
. it is very inconsistent to how other mayors have dealt with alleged official misconduct. >> mr. wagner, and those other cases you are referring to, it's a day off -- and called the sheriff himself or herself? >> no, the first case was a public defender and then a public supervisor. >> do you agree with me that our job here is a two-step job, and that his first to determine whether or not there was misconduct that reaches a level of official misconduct under the definition, and if we say yes, there was, we still have the question of, did the mayor exercise his discretion and reasonable manner? >> yes, i absolutely agree with that process. as to whether or not the mayor's decision to disband was a reasonable exercise of his discretion, you heard from opposing counsel, and it is absolutely true, there are instances where the mayor must suspend. it is not discretionary. if a person is convicted of a felony crime, and if this commission then determines that that is a crime that warrant removal, then the mayor must remove from office. that tells us right away there may be felony crimes invol
no further changes. >> mr. wagner? >> no changes, thank you. >> commissioners? public comment on this matter? >> patrick -- i'm surprised in the minutes that you are about to adopt that you didn't note that it is customary in court orders to include motions that are sustained and motions that are denied by the court and to that except i think david wagner was absolutely correct ten minutes ago when he recommended to you that the summary report that you are giving to the board of supervisors should specifically state what you denied in finding regarding the mayor's charges. and to that extent, your previous minutes should have alerted the public that you were going to get to the point that you weren't going to include in the recommendation going to the board of supervisors what you threw out because most courts will tell you what they sustained and what they denied. you should have told us about that in your earlier meetings. it's the kind of unethical behavior that san franciscans have grown accustomed to seeing from this ethical body. >> three minute intervals, how great
rather than substantive questions. mr. wagner? any thoughts on this? Ñilp>> commissioners, i think in light of the problems thatdcu ty discussed in terms of the commission, speaking as a body, i think the scope of the question that the board of supervisors is likely to be restricted to things like basic procedural matters. what procedures did you follow? i doubt there will be much of substance. on the other hand, this release supports making a simple recommendation here. the board is mandated to can view -- review the complete record. i think the commissioners have discussed the evidence in a way and the charges in a way that they are going to be viewing any way in trying to reproduce that in another document. it would require a lot of effort that may not be needed. in the interest of just moving this along, we can say let's not have a separate opinion. let's read the transcript of this hearing as the commission's discussion of the evidence. >> i appreciate the consideration you are giving these issues. i want to make a couple brief points on this issue. the charter already says, a
be permitted to allow mr. wagner to proceed. if there are objections from my fellow commissioners, perhaps we should discuss. >> i can withdraw the comment. the point holds that this mayor has treated this case differently than he has treated other cases. beyond that one other fact show he used his discretion? the fax kept changing. he said he was suspended the mayor for a plea to misdemeanor 236. then use it was the plea plus domestic violence, plus maybe witness persuasion. maybe there might have been witness persuasion. the amended charges through in the gun allegations as well. the mayor testified he'd talk to ivory madison but never talk to miss lopez, even after in courage to do so by the sheriff and former mayor. the mayor admitted he suspended first and ask questions later. he submitted a declaration that was designed to poison the well. finally, at the very last hearing week requested subpoenas regarding whether the testimony was truthful. all of those facts, the charges changed come to the mayor talked to, when he talked to them, the fact that he never talked to ms. lopez. the quest
to make a finding on it. >> do the parties disagree with na, i think the sentence was stipulated. mr. wagner., >> good morning. welcome to the september 19, 2012 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. president chris fong sand commissioner funk. one seat on the board currently is vacant and pursuant to charter section 4.1060 the board may hold a meeting when there is a vacancy. in such instances -- four votes are not required to overrule a departmental action to my left is deputy city attorney robert brian. at the controls is board legal assistant mr. pacheco. we're joined by representatives from the city departments that have cases before the board tonight. dan snyder, representing the planning department and planning commission. patrick o'reardon, senior building inspector, we have aliana crusho and janine young from the department of health and mr. harris from the police department. if you could go over the board meeting guidelines and conduct the swearing in process. >> turn off all phones and pagers. please carry on conversations in the hallway. the board's rules of pres
with the crimes. back to you. >> thank you, paul wagner with the story. >>> just a short time ago, the democratic national convention officially kicked off. one of tonight's headline speakers, first lady michelle obama. as mrs. obama prepares for her big speech, her husband spent time in virginia today. mrs. obama joins us with all of the details. craig. >> reporter: good evening to you. debbie wasserman schultz on the stage here and called to order here in charlotte and you megged in prime tonight. first lady michelle obama addressing the delegates and that is after keynote address tonight. president obama also had the first lady's speech on his mind. >> whatever i say here today is going to be at best, the distant second from the star of the michelle obama -- obama family, michelle obama. >> reporter: president obama told the crowd in norfolk, virginia, he would try not to get choked up. >> i will be at home and watching it with our girls, and i am going to try not to let them see their daddy cry. [ laughter ] because when michelle starts talking, i start getting all misty. >> reporter: in her
will be joined by david wagner, an anchor at wcnc tv in charlotte. we want to show you a little bit more of bill clinton nominating president obama. [applause] >> mr. mayor, fellow democrats, we are here to nominate a president. [applause] and, i have one in mind. i want to nominate a man whose own life has known its fair share of adversity and uncertainty. i want to nominate a man who ran for president to change the course of an already weak economy, and six weeks before his election saw the stock market suffered the greatest collapse and -- since the great depression. a man who put us on the long road to recovery, knowing all the while that no matter how many jobs that he saved or created, there would still be millions of more waiting. worried about feeding their own kids, trying to keep their hopes alive. i want to nominate a man who is cool on the outside. [applause] but who burns for america on the inside. [applause] i want a man who believes with no doubt that we can build a new american dream economy driven by innovation and creativity, by education and cooperation. and and by the way, af
the sentence was stipulated. mr. wagner., do you have a view on that. >> i would object to adding any language that attempts to change what the commission decided on august 16th, that's not ultimately relevant to what the commission has to do. >> i can appreciate that view, but, did you stipulate what the sentence was? okay, thank you. >> but, that's not reflected, we stiplateed to several of these facts. but, the way it rides here, the commission unanimously finds that the mayor proved the facts. if we stipulated then the mayor didn't need to prove them. >> i have no objection to putting in the sentence, putting in the sentence, putting in the sentence, finding of fact 7.. link electronics, inc. model number: pdr-885 software version: 3.0c
Search Results 0 to 44 of about 45 (some duplicates have been removed)